S. R. LANGSTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. GORNTO, AS RECEIVER OF THE CITIZENS BANK OF MAYO, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against a bank stockholder, finding that the lower court erred by striking two of the defendant's pleas. The court held that these pleas, which denied stock ownership and asserted payment, should have been allowed to proceed.
Yes, the trial court erred in striking the pleas that denied stock ownership and asserted payment. However, the court found no error in sustaining demurrers to other pleas.
“The ruling striking these pleas was error, and the judgment must be reversed upon authority of Chavous v. Gornto, supra.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe receiver of an insolvent bank sued a stockholder to collect an assessment made by the State Comptroller. The trial court overruled the defendant's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
West, C. J.
This is an action by the receiver against a stockholder of an insolvent State Bank to enforce payment by the stockholder of an assessment made against him by the Comptroller of the State. There was a demurrer to the declaration, which was overruled. Subsequently pleas were filed, four sets in all during the progress of the action, all of which went out either upon motion to strike or demurrer. Final judgment thereupon was entered for plaintiff. The ruling on the pleadings and the entry of judgment are the basis of the assignments of error. The case requires only brief discussion, since all the points presented have previously been considered and decided. Chavous v. Gornto, — Fla. —, 102 South. Rep. 754.
The action is predicated upon the same assessment by the Comptroller against the stockholders of the same bank, as in the above cited case, the only difference in that case and this being the stockholder against whom as defendant the action was brought. Of the last series of pleas filed the first and second were stricken on motion. The first of these denied that the defendant owned or ever had owned any interest in any of the capital stock of the bank. The second avers discharge of the claim sued on by payment. The ruling striking these pleas was error, and the judgment must be reversed upon authority of Chavous v. Gornto, supra. There is no error' in the ruling sustaining demurrers to pleas three to nine inclusive.
Eeversed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.